incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Mclean <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling releases
Date Tue, 12 Mar 2019 23:13:05 GMT

+1 to the idea in general, but +0 to it in its current form.

> "Podlings should be able to request feedback by starting a "[DISCUSS]"
> thread or a "[VOTE]" thread.  The podling can decide whether they prefer
> [DISCUSS] or [VOTE], but only a release which passes a vote by members of
> the IPMC is an official ASF release.
> Discussion should give podlings feedback on what they would need to do to
> bring their release in line with the requirements of an official ASF
> release and thus for graduation to TLP.  Podlings will be responsible for
> capturing feedback that they accept in work items for their project.
> Feedback provided in a discussion thread will not block a non-ASF release.
> Asking for feedback using this mechanism is not obligatory, but rather a
> service that the incubator offers and podlings can take advantage of."

I think this is an excellent idea but the wording re "will not block a non-ASF release”
may need some work. (A minus one vote on a release doesn’t block anything as it’s not
a veto, but that’s not my main concern).

Let's assume for a minute that an podling make a release candidate, votes on it and put it
up for incubator discussion. The IPMC finds it contains GPL licensed software and provides
that feedback. What does the podling do? They probably can’t make this an ASF release or
place in the ASF distribution channel or link to on their download page. to do so they would
problem need permission from legal and infra. If they place it elsewhere it’s likely it
will cause user confusion to what is an ASF release and what is not. How do you see the proposal
working in this situatiion?

Part of the big problem here is with distinguishing the non-ASF releases from the ASF ones.
A lot of podlings fail to follow branding, trademark or distribution policy when making non-ASF
releases or worse make it easy for users to confuse non-ASF releases with actual ASF releases
and promote these non-ASF releases as ASF ones.

> Notes on proposal:
> * This proposal does presume that we are allowing non-ASF releases in the
> early days of a poddling.  My understanding of the discussion of the last
> few weeks is that this has *actually* always been allowed, but that that
> knowledge may not have been wide spread.

It’s a little more subtle than that, 3rd parties can make non-ASF releases, podlings (or
rather the IPMC) can’t. A member of the (P)PMC can act as a 3rd party. This has also been
used in a couple of cases to get around making official ASF release.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message